Monday, June 30, 2014

According to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), only 20% of the population receiving conditional cash transfers (CCTS) are operationally problematic. The constraints offer some clue as to how the use of m-money might be unfeasible in these locations. In particular, it will be unfeasible for m-money to work in areas where there are no cellular signals, which likely accounts for part of the difficult to reach 20%. Nonetheless, would it still be beneficial to consider the implementation of m-money in other areas?

Photo 1: Enumerators prepare tokens for the survey respondents

At present, there are various modalities for delivering conditional cash transfers to their intended beneficiaries. These different modes consider the availability of Landbank branches, or in its absence, possible partner rural banks, and postal services (PhilPost). The expense for the DSWD vary per option. For those using Landbank/cash cards, there is no additional costs except for the initial cost of providing cash cards. For partner rural banks, the rates vary between 22 to 40 pesos (about US$.50 - $.91). Using Philpost, a government-owned corporation, the cost is 50 pesos. If none of these are feasible, then other groups bid to provide the service. By bidding this out, the cost of using other private conduits has gone down from Php75 initially to only Php42.

In terms of using m-money as an alternative, the question is whether it can deliver to beneficiaries at a cost less than other modalities in areas not serviced by Landbank/cashcards, but where access to mobile services are present.

We considered the technical and financial feasibility question, by visiting an area where GRemit has operated, San Jose, Mindoro Oriental. In the past two years, at least half of CCT funds that have been distributed there were delivered through GRemit, albeit not through a “pure m-money model.’ There is also operational m-money infrastructure in the area (e.g. GCash and Smart Money/Padala).

Technical feasibility

We surveyed CCT beneficiaries that GRemit was already servicing and asked about their interest, access, and previous experience in using m-money through cellphones. The majority of respondents (71% of 307 respondents) expressed interest in receiving CCT through the mobile phone. Relative distance to known claim/redemption centers for mobile money was significant with regards their willingness to do this. Those who were closer to a known cash-out center were also more willing.

In terms of mobile phone ownership, almost half (49%) of the respondents owned a mobile phone, and a majority subscribed to SMART (90%). Interestingly, ownership of a mobile phone was not statistically significant as to whether they were interested in m-money for CCT. This suggests that even those who currently do not possess a mobile phone are open to this option. This also means, that if this is to be universally rolled out, then the cost of providing mobile phones to the beneficiaries must be considered in design implementation.

Photo 2: Beneficiaries wait for their names to be validated.
In the background mobile stalls sell toys, clothes and food.

Overall, a third (34%) reported knowledge of receiving money via the mobile phone. People’s pre-existing knowledge of the use of m-Money was also statistically significant with regard to willingness to use it as a transfer conduit. Those who knew how to use m-money were more willing to have CCTs delivered through their mobile phone. Furthermore, those who had previous experience using mobile money were also those who reported interest in receiving their CCT in this manner. More of them were familiar with and had experience transacting with SMART Padala centers than with GCash merchant partners. Partly this was because more of them were SMART subscribers, and there was a greater presence of such outlets in the area (see Photo 2). A third had already experienced using SMART Padala, and only 1.5% had used GCash. Although training non-users would be still be needed for implementation of CCT thru m-money, the existing experience in the community can be helpful in its acceptance.

Financial feasibility

To be financially feasible, cost efficiencies and potential savings (for both the government and the beneficiaries) should be demonstrable. The DSWD expressed preference for more frequent CCT releases at smaller amounts. However, if this is done, the operational costs would be greater because of manpower costs and expenses directly connected to its distribution and compliance monitoring.

Would m-money provide a financially viable option in such a case? At current market rates, it was calculated that at smaller increments (cash transfers lower than Php2000), both GCash and SMART Money can be delivered at a rate lower than what is currently being charged by DSWD’s conduits (i.e. MLhuillier or GRemit). SMARTMoney charges for the sender are also lower than what GCash charges (Php10 vs Php40 respectively). With amounts larger than Php2000 (about US$46), GCash becomes less viable, whereas SMART Money continues to be a viable alternative. At present, the maximum benefit provided on a bi-monthly release is Php2800. This would cost Php15 for the sender if coursed through SMART Money, and Php60 if coursed through GCash.

Photo 3: Merchants hand out money to beneficiaries.
Barangay Central and San Agustin.

Costs on the part of the cash transfer recipients can also be compared. For CCT beneficiaries, their primary concern is the travel expense. However, transactions using SMART Money has additional charges, whereas GCash does not. It was also noted that the different cash out centers we interviewed in San Jose were not consistent in their policy as far as cashing out was concerned. This implies, that if CCT is implemented in this way, then m-money merchants must be duly trained/informed; and beneficiaries taught the correct deductions, if any. For smaller cash transfers, GCash and SMART Money, even with their additional charges, are competitive and even better than the current amount DSWD pays for delivering the amount per beneficiary, particularly for transactions below Php2000. GCash is not viable with bigger transactions (higher than 2000), whereas SMART Money becomes less attractive once money transferred is higher that Php2700. But, given the large volume of money possibly coursed through this system, the government may want to negotiate for reduced rates.

Nonetheless, there would still be limitations on m-money viability. It would be dependent on the scale of availability of these services, and accessibility of their cash out centers in the areas being served and the transportation costs for accessing them.

Conclusions: Implications on CCT program design

Even as mobile phone coverage increases, there will still be areas where access to mobile phones is not universal. As such, an important consideration for CCT implementors is whether to provide this option only to those with mobile phones, and/or to provide mobile phones to beneficiaries as well.

Rolling out this program would be easier to implement in areas where cash out centers already exist. There, existing knowledge and experience in receiving cash transfers through phones are more likely, and community knowledge can be leveraged to help convince and train non-users.

Financially, an m-money based CCT can be viable, particularly for small and frequent transfers. Further, since there are two kinds of mobile money platforms in the Philippines, another consideration is to which existing networks the majority of beneficiaries in an area are subscribed and the ubiquity of partners/merchants present there. This can reduce barriers to adoption and generate positive interest in the proposed modality.

However, would the existing number of m-money cash out centers be able to absorb huge single day demands for cashing out? Can cashing out be controlled or reduced by retaining CCT in a non-cash (m-money) form within a local ecosystem? This will be discussed in my next blog: “Leveraging CCT to develop stronger m-money eco-systems in local communities.”

Monday, June 23, 2014

In a recent article in PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, I use IMTFI’s Design Principles, published in 2010, and the IMTFI-funded project Following the Bean: Navigating Value Exchange and Vulnerability with Farmers and their Stakeholder (Melissa Cliver, Fellow 2009 and 2010) to examine the emerging practice of Humanitarian Design in financial inclusion. Drawing on anthropologists such as Lucy Suchman, Peter Redfield and Bruno Latour, I interrogate the ways in which professional designers who are using their expertise towards social ends have redefined the problem of development as a lack of creative ideas and innovation as well as inattention to systems and the absence of client feedback. Through this reconceptualization, humanitarian designers are positing themselves and especially their methods of design thinking, empathetic research, co-design and prototyping, as the experts best placed to address this problem. Design as an integrative discipline is seen as well-suited to solve the ‘wicked problems’ presented by persistent global poverty.

"Following the Bean" presents a good example of such design expertise. The original proposal was for the creation of a visual financial management tool for farmers of a coffee cooperative in Oaxaca, Mexico. Through the process of fieldwork, which encompassed ethnographic observations, story boarding, behaviour journal models and participatory design workshops, Cliver and her team discovered that farmers had a greater need for cash. They also discovered that coop members’ various ways of spending money stood in a special relationship of how that money was earned. Income from coffee and corn, for example, covered everyday expenses, while extra money made from enjoyable activities like selling flowers was spent on enjoyable things like butter and hard-earned cash from the US was used for serious work like house construction. What was referred to as savings, namely putting money aside for an undefined future as opposed to for specific occasions, did not have a paired cash stream, expressed in the observation that ‘there is never enough money left over to save.’ The designers then conceptualized a new income stream for savings into a concept called Send the Change, where a US consumer would buy the coop’s coffee and round up the change, the difference of which would be sent electronically into a special savings scheme. Unfortunately the team was not able to test the concept’s prototype in the field. In the article, I show in much greater detail how to team carried out its work and the opportunities and constraints they faced in the process.

"Following the Bean" was just one project whose findings informed IMTFI’s Design principles, which were published as part of the first annual report. For IMTFI, design was a way to make the findings of its researchers actionable. You can see all of the principles here. In my article, I synthesize them as principles corresponding to codes (related to social status and rank), convertibility (related to different value scales and conversions among them) and cycles (related to temporal rhythms and obligations attached to them). I argue that these principles constitute poor people as innovators whose calculative and other logics inform humanitarian design, which on the other hand also contributes to disciplining them through financial practices. The result is a particular form of hybrid knowledge which is characteristic of what Daromir Rudnyckyj and I, in the special PoLAR issue of which this article is a part, have called the Afterlives of Development. This knowledge seeks to enable the coexistence of calculative and cultural rationalities in financial inclusion.

Last but not least, I am also interested in how design and anthropology (which are coming together in the emerging field of design anthropology) can inform development practice. I argue that both hold complexity in view rather than trying it render it technical. Design and anthropology offer development novel ways of looking, listening and learning, working with an experimental approach that questions the very assumptions that most development interventions take for granted. Rather than assuming what people need, humanitarian designers are wondering whether they are even asking the right questions. Having said this, we cannot overlook that humanitarian design practitioners and expertise have Western origins and in that regard present a continuation with orthodox models of development. The challenge is to find, in the words of Bill Maurer, “collateral, collaborative praxis” whereby anthropology, design and development can be drawn into relation and begin to create alternative figures of development. I think IMTFI is a great place to explore these questions further and I would love to hear your thoughts on this, or on the article itself. You can email me at a.schwittay@auckland.ac.nz

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

In Dharavi, Mumbai, the largest urban slum in Asia, groups of women make papad,
crispy lentil dough wafers, for Lijjat Papad Company, one of the
world’s largest papad retailers. Lijjat requires any woman who works
for the enterprise to first open a savings account, and to encourage
savings, the company deposits a small proportion of the women’s earnings
(2 rupees of every 32 rupees earned) directly into the savings
accounts, adding a bonus during the Diwali festival.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Most of you reading this are sophisticated banking customers: you expect instant access, online apps, notifications, analytics and not a little delight. But imagine not having access to any of that. Imagine having to carry all your wealth on your person, or hide it in your home.

When people talk about “banking”, they often lose sight of its core value proposition: take money out of circulation and keep it somewhere safe where it can be accessed at a later date; access to credit; and to pay for things. After those three features, the benefits of banking are largely incremental. But to not have these three things, makes life very tricky. Rudimentary banking services (so-called financial inclusion) can help pull people out of poverty.

Myanmar is a country with very low formal banking penetration, but changes are afoot: it will soon have its first country-wide 3G network; there is significant inwards investment, an impending development of more stable, flexible financial policy and a stock exchange in 2015 that will stimulate domestic financial activity.

In March this year a team from Myanmar-based Proximity Designs, frog and strategy consultancy Studio D Radiodurans mapped the changing financial landscape in Myanmar. Over the two month project — funded by the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion — we explored the diverse financial landscape for the poor in Myanmar and uncovered the nuances of income and loan cycles. We mapped behaviours around and attitudes to savings, investments, loans and transactions. We also explored the duality of development, how the poor balance their culture and beliefs with the advancement and globalisation of Myanmar, and how it has impacted their current lives and their outlook for the future. It’s a journey that takes in betel sellers, monks, motorbikes, goats and a lot of gold, with not a little of the afterlife.

The report identifies thirteen findings and twenty one insights, as well as a number of opportunities for future products and services. It aims to provide a foundational reference for organisations wishing to develop products and services for financially constrained consumers in Myanmar.

“defaulting on the loan would place a heavy burden on them and

their family not just in this life, but also in the next.”

Some of the findings map to what is known in other markets, albeit with characteristics that are unique to Myanmar. For example motivations for not defaulting on a loan vary by culture, person, context. In Myanmar, a devout Buddhist borrower defaulting on a loan would be placing a heavy burden on themselves and their family not just in this life, but also in the next. We also learnt the significance of the novitiation ceremony in the life of a devout Buddhist Burmese, an event that results in them spending as much as US$1,700 at once, even though they earn less than US$10 a day.

Monday, June 2, 2014

The goal of this study was to explore personal, business, and social money-related practices that have emerged with increased patronage of Mobile Money (MM) in Ghana. Of particular interest was the impact of MM on the urban poor who so far appear to be the sector of the population least aware of and the least likely to use MM in their daily lives.

The goals of the proposed study were to (i) investigate MM uptake patterns in year 3 of its re-introduction to Ghana, (ii) to explore the social and cultural interfaces between MM and existing money behaviors, including savings and money transfer practices among Ghanaians of different socioeconomic classes, and (iii) to investigate of the internalized (cognitive) representations of MM that Ghanaians develop. The study focused on the segments of the Ghanaian population and behavioral practices that were perceived as included and excluded from the MM adoption process. Research to answer these questions was conducted using surveys, spending diaries, interviews, and analysis of secondary data.

Transfer Money to Loved Ones Instantly with Mobile Money*

Results

Study 1: Adoption of MM into Personal Financial Practices, A Quantitative InquiryCollege Student Monetary Preferences Study: Second only to treasury bills in overall preferences, Mobile Money was preferred over notes, coin, and card-based options. Cash was preferred over card-based options. High value notes were preferred more than lower denomination notes. Notes were preferred over coins.College Student Spending Diary Study:Cash was the predominant form of payment for daily expenses while Non-cash transactions made up 2.86% of reported purchases and MM accounted for less than 1% of transactions.Mobile Money Use Population Survey: 14% of our sample reported using MM at least once in order to receive a money transfer and/or send a money transfer, pay bills, make purchases of goods and purchase airtime.Industry Data: There was a significant uptake in MM use based on provided data.

Study 2: Adoption of MM into Personal Financial Practices, A Qualitative InquiryInterviews with Individuals in the MM industry:Interviewees cited regulatory, agent, educational, pricing and profitability issues as barriers to MM uptake, but respondents were optimistic about the potential for growth in the MM industry in Ghana.Interviews with Consumers (both users and non-users of MM): Participants expressed an overall preference for cash over MM, and displayed a lack of trust of MM, yet basic knowledge of MM was higher than in previous years.Interviews with Early Adopters: First use of MM occurred in a situation where the individual had an urgent need to send money to someone in another part of the country. 9 of 10 participants used it again.Interviews with Retailers: Retailers predominantly used cash over MM in commerce because of lack of trust (network problems and concerns about fraudulent activity), yet knowledge of MM among retailers had increased.Mobile Money in the Church:The nature of MM (intangible and mobile-phone based) made it undesirable for incorporation into church activities (including funerals and weddings).

Conclusion

The results of this series of studies revealed the following:
1. Cash is King in Ghana: Cash is still the main form of payment for day-to-day purchases. Large payments generally involve the formal banking sector. Cashless payment forms have not yet began to dominate the payment scene.
2. College students prefer Mobile Money over cash, but not over treasury bills (for saving).
3. Mobile Money knowledge and use has increased, but MM has not become a major means of payment for goods and services, or savings.
4. MNOs have increased MM products available to the public, slowly creating a MM ecosystem. However, apart from money transfer, this ecosystem is largely targeting the middle and upper class.
5. Barriers to MM uptake remain: Information gathered from interviews indicates the persistence of regulatory, partnership, and educational barriers that hamper the growth of the MM industry in Ghana.

In conclusion, the answer to the question of how Ghanaians from different socio-economic backgrounds are making sense and use of mobile money in urban Ghana in their personal, business, social lives is a simple one. The use of MM is increasing over time, and the commercial settings in which MM can be used is slowly growing due to the development of new products and business partnerships, but cash remains the major means of payment in urban Ghana. Also the majority of the MM products (apart from money transfer) are aimed towards the middle and upper classes to the exclusion of lower income groups. For instance, willingness to use MM especially in markets was low at the time of data collection. It is therefore hoped that as the MM ecosystem grows, new products that benefit lower income segments of society will be developed.

Socially, MM is gradually establishing itself as a means by which individuals can fulfill their financial obligations to extended family members in financial need. Apart from sending remittances, however, these series of studies indicate that MM has not widely permeated the social sphere, and thus has so far not had a salient impact on social life (e.g. churches, funerals, weddings). Whether or not this will change over time remains to be seen.